Debate #23 - Notes
Debate 23 - Notes
Electro mechanical cluster. Prompt for built environment. 12 institutions have come together – Futures Group (CIC). Objectives for collaboration explored. Applying multi-disciplinary approach to multi-faceted issues. Recognise that institutions are where they are and have contribution to make but more is needed.
EC UK looks after 35 engineering institutions, although there are many more. It is natural that there are a lot of engineering bodies and the same thing occurs in France, USA. Engineering institutions are easy to form. They are valuable social engines. We all take institutions at their own assessment too readily. Teamwork natural for this industry. Govt has failed to show leadership for in creating regulatory bodies for the built environment. Neither ARB or ECUK are able to break down barriers. The suggestion is for a single registration body for engineers and architects, otherwise the sector will continue to operate at sub-optimal level.
It is disappointing that we have taken top-down approach. In light of integrated design and construction experience it is clear that multi disciplinary is needed to train our leaders. This is not available academically or commercially. Recruiting from Architectural Engineering courses (Leeds) posed a dilemma for personnel department, namely in which profession to train under career silo do they fit the inter-disciplinary type. Need to start at the bottom, with the training in interdisciplinary understanding to build down the boundaries.
Best collaboration from specificity and lingua franca. Are institutions ever based on specific disciplines? Do they sell the public short?
British Tunnelling Society is a splendid example of what a learned society is all about. Completely cross-disciplinary. It limits itself when discussing broad issues– get engineers and accountants arguing about the risks. Need more people involved in the risk discussion. Boundaries for the built environment would be too narrowly drawn.
If we limit ourselves to buildings. Different disciplines should have common elements. Differences emphasised. Academics have role in getting us to start from the same place. Structurals now producing “quick” graduates. But subsequent training left to chance?
In terms of knowledge, it is important to know what you don’t know. Discipline of knowing what other disciplines can contribute to a collective endeavour is important.
How do institutions respond to inter-disciplinary courses? Need to paint the course in different ways to appeal to the different institutions. Dealing with a complex mix - 3-ringed circus, academe, industry and the institutions. Where is the team constituted between business, government and the institutions? We are dancing around in a vacuum.
Social boundaries – do teams work together? Should not try to impose professional boundaries on people. Need to make sure abilities fit? Many people do not fit into normal categorisation. Create the group around stable people who fit together. Leadership changes constantly in a well defined mature design team. It changes depending on the issue.
Society needs boundaries. Boundaries created for appropriateness of the time. Institutions becoming more important in discharge of wider service to society. Maplas report defined engineering knowledge as “Know what” and engineering process as “know how”. We manage the “know what”. The process is quite well understood but it is getting more adversarial and little understood. Relevant to address the sector we seek to serve. Not a question of “you lead I’ll follow” but let’s walk together. Fuzzy edges are the overlaps in our industry. New tools 3D and 4D could lead to better integration. Diversity of voice has been employed to ignore some voices. Wider duty of care: free market economics and its limitations.
Don’t stand about moving the boundaries from the past to what is appropriate today. Should be looking forward and identifying the boundaries for tomorrow.
Can institutions have professionalism on one side and terms and conditions on the other? Should they mix? Feeling that they shouldn’t
Problem in being both a learned society and a guild. Long history of this in Europe but does not exist elsewhere. Can the two be separated? If we can separate them, it will make other sorts of organisation easier.
Professionals defining themselves at age of 16 in terms of the exams they take. It is a madness and it defines the boundaries between the professions. Want more people who can join several institutions. Do need to separate the training to be a professional from the institutions themselves.
Importance of specialisation. Undergraduate curriculum packed and can only deliver the minimum amount of knowledge. How can this be broadened? If we started again would we bother with institutions? Have they helped individuals? In bottom-up terms what are institutions offering? At government level single voice argument important.
Understanding and respect for professions is important and happens too late. Significant number of people in the wrong professions. Lots of sub-quality professionals. Perhaps they are in the wrong careers? Why not do the art schools, who have a common first Foundation Year and let people explore different areas of work before committing.
Futures Group heading towards Ted Happold’s original vision for CIC – moving together
Institutions might co-exist within collective body of membership with visions and histories intact.
How can we be so fractured and yet all be a part of same client-facing body. Case for the institutions. Reason institutions were invented – to serve society and if you are going to do this you need a shape and form to do this. You also need a rallying point. Tribal perhaps. Cap badge loyalty. Need it to attract people in voluntary effort. But of course institutions need to change, give up some of the boundaries and find a more rational voice.
Building down barriers experience. We are looking at the badge we wear and think this defines the person. Need to separate the badge and the reason why a person is employable. Have one large institution for the built environment. There is an argument for something bigger. Other industries run things this way
Why bother (with institutions)? In 19th century competition was between those with and without knowledge. Now lots of knowledge, localised. Might now be more greatly protected. Role of institutions is to protect commonality of knowledge.
ICE now only does 2 things. Knowledge and Membership. Education/training Decouple knowledge activities from regulation.
If only focused on built environment deny ourselves other disciplines. Scope for infinitely richer mix.
Cap badge analogy unhelpful. Cannot belong to two tribes. Need to be able to belong to any community that shares an interest. Institutions have other duties. They do not need to serve all of our needs.
Registration councils. Why not have one board for the built environment, not separate ones for engineering and architecture.
Recognise benefits of boundaries
Key thoughts
Belief in expertise and refocus on knowledge
Specialisation and collaboration
Sustainability focuses the mind on interdisciplinary solutions.